SCMR 1995

1995SCMR738 (PLP)

KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHANCELLOR (GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB) and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No.149-L of 1994, decided on 29th March, 1994.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar arid Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1995SCMR738 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar arid Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
Parties KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHANCELLOR (GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB) and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR738 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR738 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar arid Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR738 (PLP) (KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHANCELLOR (GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB) and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • Gulzar Ahmed Qureshi. Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 29th March, 1994.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13-12-1993 in Writ petition No. 170 of 1993 and Cr. Misc. No 46/M of 1994.) ‑‑‑‑S. 35‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Curtailment of financial powers delegated to employee of.' respondent for efficient discharge of his duties‑‑ ‑Employee's Constitutional petition against curtailment of such powers was dismissed and he was called upon to pay specified amount by way of special costs

Validity

Delegation of financial powers upon employee was not intended to confer any right or quasi-rights on him; it was merely intended of assist him in performing his duties efficiently such employee could not be deemed to be an aggrieved person if such power was taken away from him or curtailed High Court, was thus, right in dismissing employee s Constitutional petition being not maintainable

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 13‑12‑1993 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was serving as ail executive engineer in the Building and Works Department of the University of Engineering and Technology. He was responsible for the maintenance of the hostels of the University. For the efficient discharge of his duties he was delegated with financial powers to incur expenditure up to Rs. 10,

000. Subsequently, by a series of orders falling between 28‑3‑1992 and 10‑8‑1992 his financial powers were curtailed. He filed a Constitution petition in the High Court challenging the curtailment of his Dowers. The petition was dismissed and he was called upon to pay Rs. 10,000 by way of special costs. He seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. This petition is clearly misconceived. The delegation of financial powers upon the petitioner was not intended to confer any right or quasi‑rights on him; it was merely intended to assist him in performing his duties efficiently. He cannot possibly be said to be aggrieved if this power is taken away from him or curtailed. The High Court was therefore right in dismissing the petition as it was clearly not maintainable. Leave is refused. AA./K‑245/S Leave refused.